Talk:The Mousetrap

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theatre Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Mousetrap article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Listing the killer

While I see some peoples points about the wikipedia preceident of listing the killer this isn't your average play there is a big deal made at the end of the play about keeping the answer a secret. Is it possible to put this up for discussion like you can with a whole article (ie; deletion policy). --Rob 07:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that is terrible and against the idea of the play you go to keep it locked away in your heart! --Rob 12:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think it's very sporting to have the solution on here. I mean, I'm sure it's on the Internet somewhere but still. Michaelritchie200 16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it's at the very end. I am interested in Mousetrap as the longest running show not as a play so I'm glad I know what the fuss is all about. As for sporting, please, this is Wikipedia! You're suppose to have answers here! 203.214.159.176 11:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Plus, it's usual to name the solution at wikipedia. See The Hound of the Baskervilles or Murder on the Orient Express as other famous examples. And I really think it's okay. However, an anonymous user put the solution before the spoiler warning in the "short plot overview" section. I realize that it might very well be a Troll, and if he is, this is useless anyway, but in case you were a new user and just missed it, please put the solution always after the spoiler tag or at least a spoiler warning. I think that's a pretty good solution for almost all mystery artciles. ;-) Neville Longbottom 22:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well its been changed again. There is obviously some support behind this... shall we put this to vote? we seem to have 50/50 from the small amount of people who have discussed and/or changed the article, its only fair.

-- Oh dear lord, who took it out this time? I don't see why people complain if there's a spoiler warning. One only has to look at - say - the Doctor Who episode guides to realise there's a precedent on Wikipedia for publishing spoilers. I suggest we have a vote. --Richiau

I'm im favour for a vote as well. And just in case it takes place and I shouldn't be around, I'm in favour for keeping the solution. Neville Longbottom 22:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm for it. Although for sentimental reasons I am against having it on Wikipedia there is a precident set this is an unusual case though so I am undecided! --Rob 12:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning says that it's unacceptable to delete relevant material about a subject "because it's a spoiler"; this is exactly why the spoiler tags exist, so that readers can choose whether or not to have certain information revealed to them. It doesn't need a vote (or a vote on a vote) - I've re-added a slightly tidied version of the spoiler section from an earlier version of this article. --McGeddon 12:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Add a fifty-page long EXTREMELY boring essay on why not to reveal "whodunnit", and then add the solution at the end, in 8-point text in the Bauhaus font! Result: only the extremely brave will see it. 216.232.196.134 14:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I turned "honor" to the closest actual English word, honour. 216.232.196.134 14:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Actual English word"? Ah, there's that renowned British modesty. ~ CZeke 20:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There should definitely be a spoiler warning, or (even better) a link to the solution from the main page to a separate page to prevent anyone from accidentally seeing the answer. I came onto Wikipedia to look for some background on the play as a friend had asked me about it. I haven't seen it myself yet, so I was incredibly miffed to suddenly come upon the identity of the killer - if there had been a spoiler warning, then I would have stopped reading immediately because of the secrecy about the killer's identity being such a key part of its long run. --Tillietid 19:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is unfair on people who are going to see the play for the excitement of trying to work out whodunnit to reveal the plot twist. However, the argument for the site having the answer is strong, so the obivous answer is to include a spoiler warning, then people can choose to ignore the relevant seciton or not. I don't see why it is such a big deal to people not to include a spoiler alert, unless they are simply trolls 81.144.246.68 13:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an obvious thing to say, but: if you're planning on seeing a mystery play for the excitement of working out whodunnit, you shouldn't look it up in an encyclopaedia and start reading a section called "Plot".
I think there's some argument for putting a spoiler warning around that paragraph in this particular case, though, if the culture of secrecy surrounding the ending is so well known that the average reader would think "well, obviously they aren't going to reveal the actual ending". --McGeddon 15:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I've split the ending into a separate "Identity of the killer" section instead (which isn't an entirely trivial section, as the tradition of asking audiences not to tell their friends also fits into it). I think that removes any possible argument that a reader wasn't sure what to expect when they started reading that section.--McGeddon 12:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I went to see the play this week and looked it up on wikipedia in advance. Despite the title of the section "The Identity Of The Murderer", I still did not avoid discovering the identity. This was probably because a) I was skim reading and b) I didn't expect the identity to be revealed.

Despite the good arguments for revealing, can I please suggest that the identity is not revealed so people like me (and there will be others!) do not have the plot spoiled. We should just put a link to another page for those who really want to find out. Thoughts? Marmaduke Jinks 23:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As you can see, this has been discussed elsewhere on this talk page, in the past. I'm afraid there's absolutely no precedent on Wikipedia for moving potential spoilers into separate mini-articles - we either write about something in detail, or we don't. --McGeddon (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's spoiler policy has also changed since this was last discussed: "In Wikipedia, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. Therefore, Wikipedia carries no spoiler warnings except for the Content disclaimer." --McGeddon (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I accept the argument that Wikipedia is trying to be 'an important, encyclopaedic reference', and, as WP:SPOILER states, this means revealing twists. However, a two-paragraph plot summary does not count as encyclopaedic. So, rather than argue about why it is vital for the quality of Wikipedia for this article to reveal the spoiler, someone should put some effort into writing a decent plot summary. Look at The Sixth Sense - the plot summary is so long, it should be obvious that it will give away the ending of the film, and there is no need for a separate section containing the spoiler. Until someone can do the same for The Mousetrap, I've made a minor edit under 'Identity of the murderer'; hopefully this makes it easier for a casual reader to stop before they reach the spoiler. AndrewBolt (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to your edit, but any reader who is in a section called "Identity of the murderer" should hardly have cause to complain when, in that section, the murderer is reveals. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 19:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I sort of agree, and someone else appears to think that my contribution 'doesn't scan'. Since it's more effort to attempt to provide a constructive contribution, than to roll back someone else's change, I'm going to bow out here. AndrewBolt (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler warning war

Since the spoiler warning has been removed, the justification for revealing the ending given above has evaporated. Rather than simply revert the spoiler, I have taken the opportunity to demonstrate that it is possible to make some points about the ending without giving it away. I wouldn't object if someone restored the solution provided they added the spoiler warning back as well. However, arguably the actual identity of the murderer is nowhere near as notable as the fact that most people still don't know who it is. PaddyLeahy 16:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not acceptable to be self referential (WP:ASR), or to avoid telling people information (WP:ENC). Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for being dim, I don't see any self-reference in my version of this para. (WP:ASR explicitly allows terms such as "this article"... I would have thought "here" as a synonym would be equally acceptable). If you're objecting to the use of the WP jargon "notability", in context it is meaningful in the non-jargon sense. As for WP:ENC, it is entirely devoted to telling editors not to include information of various sorts. Moreover, in the specific case of The Mousetrap, I believe WP:IAR trumps any attempt to impose other policy. PaddyLeahy 17:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The self reference is where we lose tone - "In deference to fifty years of theatrical tradition, we do not name the murderer here." If you are asserting that you are ignoring all rules in this section, I highly advise you to seek more comment before continuing. I will leave the section with the POV tag for now, but I find this paragraph to be an offensive travesty. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The statement "In deference to fifty years of theatrical tradition, we do not name the murderer here." is highly biased. A neutral encyclopedia doesn't defer to tradition, theatrical or otherwise. -- MisterHand 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me you and Hipocrite are confusing WP:NPOV with WP:Consensus. Where is the debate (external to WP editors) about The Mousetrap and its ending that is misrepresented in that statement? Actually, if there is debate in the outside world about whether to defer to this tradition, it is clear that an overwhelming majority is in favour, otherwise everyone would know the ending and the play would long since have gone out of business. As for consensus among editors, Hipocrite unilaterally removed the spoiler warning despite an obvious consensus on this talk page that it should be present if the ending is given. PaddyLeahy 18:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
We're not. Review WP:ATT and WP:NPOV, and then cite your sources. You'll find you can't. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mild rewrite

I've redone the lead to better comply with WP:LS, putting the most important information in the lead and moving some extraneous material elsewhere. I moved the main twist ending to the plot section, eliminating the overly detailed ending section, but currently have the plot section several sections down, after multiple notes that the ending is a twist ending, which should serve as sufficient warning for anyone who's invested in not knowing. I'd also kind of like to see the character list go, because it seems a bit over-detailed, but I can live without it. Phil Sandifer 16:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

pardon my ignorance if not true, but wasn't it Paul Merton not Stephen Fry who revealed the ending on TV? I think it was his show "Live at the Palladium", but I've got no evidence for this to hand. 195.58.94.172 20:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was Merton, but on Have I Got News For You. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a source for either Fry or Merton, other than what people think they remember? --Kife 11:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Good question. I'm going to tag the statement for now. If a citation can't be found, we'll have to torpedo it. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The identity of the murderer

I deleted the identity of murderer, since it is not supposed to be revealed here, or anywhere else on the Internet. I recently watched the show myself, thank's God, I didn't read about it here before - it would have spoiled everything!!! Whoever has written the original text: you must not ever reveal the ending of a detective story, at least not without a clear warning! For anyone who sin't an expert on the subject, it might ruin the entire experience of reading a novel, or in this particular case, wathcing a show. I feel sorry for those who have allready booked their tickets and happen to visit this page. Please, let the mystory remain a mystory. Do not change the text back!!! /olsson07 alias H Olsson (a great fan of Agatha Christie).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olsson07 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia.
The fact that the section is titled "identity of the murder" is, I would have thought, a clear enough warning that the murderer's identity is about to be revealed. If I'd booked tickets for a whodunnit, I wouldn't read up on the play beforehand, I'd carefully avoid any reviews, and I certainly wouldn't start reading an encyclopaedia section called "identity of the murder".
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and while not aimed solely at "experts", it's certainly aimed at people who wish to find out more about a subject. Any scholar attempting to research Christie's work would be immensely frustrated by your suggested "it is revealed that someone is not the person you would expect..." rewording. --McGeddon 21:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What about a link to a new page titled 'The Mousetrap - Identity of the Murderer'. 86.154.88.225 00:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Only if an entire, detailed encyclopaedia article could be written about it, which I don't think it can. We shouldn't disrupt Wikipedia structure for the sake of spoiler warnings, when the section title "identity of the murderer" is already perfectly adequate as a warning. --McGeddon 08:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Truck Theatre Run

I can't find any evidence to suggest the showing of The Mousetrap in the Toronto Truck Theatre has ended, but if the writer is implying their "run" of showings was broken in 2004 that's certainly not how it comes across. Anyone know more about this than me? --Random Canadian Non-Member —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.247.51.57 (talk) 17:05:01, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Whoever didn't put a spoiler warning above the identity of the murder has just ruined this play for me. Thanks very much, idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.224.10.194 (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Spoiler and Wikipedia:Civility which will, I'm sure, answer your points in full. Thank you.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Three Blind Mice

The reason I put in the link to "Three Blind Mice" several months ago when I created that page (and I just cannot understand why it has just become an issue) is to draw reader's attention to the fact that the death of Daniel O'Neill, THE major event on which the both 'Three Blind Mice' and 'The Mousetrap' are based, is dealt with on great detail on that page. I am not merely repeating a link.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just become an issue because I've only just noticed it, that's all.
I feel that it's both redundant and flow-breaking to explicitly say "see Three Blind Mice for details" at the end of a paragraph, when it's already obvious that if you want more details about something that's a link, you click on that link. We don't need to explain or confirm that linked articles have more details about their subject. --McGeddon (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've made myself clear. The death of Daniel O'Neill is a real-life event (an allusion, if you like) on which both plays are based although "Three Blind Mice" comes first chronologically. I'm not sure that a casual reader of a long-ish page like "The Mousetrap" would think of skipping back and forth between the pages (and thereby interrupting the flow, as you point out, in an even worse fashion) unless they were explicitly prompted to do so. When I read a wiki page I'm unfamiliar with I don't click on the links but prefer to read the article fully through. When I dug out the details of O'Neill's death at the British Newspaper Library some months back, I did consider repeating the info on "The Mousetrap" page when I was creating the "Three Blind Mice" page but rejected the idea as there was a danger of additional info being updated on one page but not the other. A possible solution is to create an allusions section further down on this page with a standard "Main article" link back to Three Blind Mice. Would that be better?--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, yes, the allusions section sounds like a good idea. --McGeddon (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis of scenes

Jtomlin1uk contested this section's deletion because the same sort of synopsis exists (complete with fixed-width font in a dotted box) on other Christie pages. Looking at other, random play pages, though, none of them use this. Is there any actual Wikipedia policy that supports a list of scenes as encyclopaedic content, or did this just evolve arbitrarily among the Christie plays? --McGeddon (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's quite a few months ago now and I thought that the format was from another play page but I can't remember which one. It maybe that it was on one of the Christie pages. I don't know if there is a policy either for or against. If there is a policy against, I would say, fine, delete the info. If there isn't a policy then I don't think there is any harm in keeping a synopsis section in. When I get round to expanding these into full scene synopsis, then they will go anyway.
What I would say though is could editors please remember that Christie wrote over 80 books and 19 plays. Barely a week goes by when someone doesn't go into a Christie page and make one small formatting change and doesn't think of all the other pages where such a change might have to be replicated. I've added a great deal of info to all of the Christie pages since August last year, more than any other editor, and among all of these changes, I've also tried to bring in a large level of standardisation using the Wikinovels template and deleting or amending frowned-upon sections such as Trivia sections. Some of the pages are hellish to try to maintain to a standard and The Mousetrap is one of these (And Then There Were None is another!!) PLEASE think before making such changes!--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Just under two hours ago somebody reformatted the section in question and, true to form, has not (yet) bothered to touch the "lesser-known" Christie pages. I obviously wasted valuable editing time yesterday writing the above plea.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
While it's good to keep consistency, it's a bit much to ask editors to go through every possible article and make sure their change applies to each one. This is the sort of thing that requires multiple editors grouped together in a Wikiproject to do. I don't think there's a Christie Wikiproject, but perhaps there's interest in putting one together in order to bring some consistency to articles? -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 15:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, very few editors would think to check other, similar articles when correcting such a freeform piece of formatting; I know I probably wouldn't. If this is a recurring section of many articles, we should probably have a template for it, to ensure that it remains in a uniform, easily-edited format.
Policy could go either way. I'd say that WP:INDISCRIMINATE was probably against it - the "development and historical significance" of a play is more important than the minutiae of its production, and whereas something like the original cast has encyclopaedic value, a flat list of scene locations doesn't (if Scene 4 has a really interesting setting, we should write about that as prose). It might be worth bringing this up at somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre, to see what the wider theatrical-editor consensus is. --McGeddon (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree a Wikiproject would be a good idea however I must disagree with your statement that it's a bit much to ask editors to make similar changes on other pages. If "one-off" changes were made on more obscure pages such as Why Didn't They Ask Evans? or Passenger to Frankfurt, I would perhaps agree but it's always the same two f**king pages they change!! This one and And Then There Were None. Excuse my language but it has led to two "mongrel" pages that, in the latter instance, veers considerably away from the wikinovels template at times and requires a lot of effort to bring it back into line.--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you had that the wrong way around - someone editing Passenger to Frankfurt might be enough of a Christie fan to check other articles, but an editor of a page about a mainstream work is less likely to be reading the others.
It is too much to ask an editor to check all the other articles to work out what the consensus rule for formatting is, though. If the scene synopsis is important, its format should be written in stone somewhere, so that other editors can check it and help to keep it consistent. If you're the only person that's aware of it, then you're bound to be fighting a losing battle against random edits. --McGeddon (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Mousetrap gets almost a change a day. How many of these changes have been made by someone checking for templates before they do so - very, very few, IMO. (I'm also tempted to ask how many of those changes are relevant and add something of value to the article but perhaps it's best not to go there!!)--Jtomlin1uk (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that many users check other articles for formatting, when clearing up something like this. New users wouldn't think to, and experienced users would assume that if something had to be formatted precisely, it would be an actual {{template}}. The fly-by edit replacing an upper-case, fixed-width, dotted-border box with a simple bullet list seems perfectly reasonable, and this is the Wikipedia default for presenting a list of informational points. --McGeddon (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)